++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Trump's economy is harming those who are dependent but at least they have jobs and therefore,their dignity and self esteem. Something progressive Democrats do not understand thus, do not support. (See 1 and 1a below.)
Meanwhile, President Trump visited North Carolina yesterday and in his folksy 'I may be a billionaire but I am one of you' style, he told the audience he loved this country and if re-elected would continue to keep his pledges and to Make America Even Better. (See 1b below.)
Beto, Bernie and Booker continued down the path of helping re-elect Trump. How so? Beto told voters he dislikes America and wants to change it, Booker continued to campaign by attacking everything and reminding voters only "Spartacus" could turn this nation around. As for Bernie, he joined Pocohantas in wanting to shut the fracking industry down so he can also increase unemployment and make America dependent upon external oil supplies.
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
ISI comments on the Israeli election. (See 2 below.)
I had the opportunity to listen to a closed conference call today and my friend,who was the speaker, believes there will be little change in policy even if BIBI loses. Though that may be, the stature of BIBI cannot be replaced by his opponent.
I also learned the IAEA moves so slow, purposely or not, that by the time Netanyahu warned about Iran's atomic warehouse only traces of uranium were found because they had destroyed the facility.
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Sent to me by a dear friend, fellow memo reader and a tennis buddy. I suspect the majority are Democrats. (See 3 below.)
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
I have seen little comment about the war between former Atty. Gen. Holder and Mitch McConnell.
The former wants to redistrict in favor of Democrats and is using state judges as his ally and Mitch is trying to get more conservative Federal Judges appointed so that it reduces jury shopping's impact and eliminates the radical zanies in certain western and eastern districts. (see 4 below.)
Stay tuned.
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Macron slaps Trump's other cheek.(See 5 below.)
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Dick
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
1) Food Stamp Recipients Drop By 6.2 Million Under Trump Presidency
When Donald Trump ran for office in 2016, he vowed to make America great again. His promised strategies to complete this task included bettering the economy, reducing crime, cracking down on illegal immigration, restoring jobs, and ensuring that the United States is taken more seriously on the world stage. Despite mindless “resistance” from rabid progressives and the Democrat Party, the president continues to make good on his promises, especially as the 2020 presidential election gets further and further along.
In keeping with his promises, more than 6.2 million individuals have gotten off food stamps since President Trump’s time in office, as documented by Breitbart News.
Despite what the left-wingers will claim, reducing dependency on government is actually very good. It allows people to stand on their own two feet and pave a way for themselves which doesn’t rely upon living off the dime of others. There are no legitimate reasons to oppose this, other than Democrats being disappointed at their decreasing lack of control over people’s lives, hence reducing their political relevance and power.
A Closer Look at Fewer Food Stamp Recipients...
Click here to read the full story
1a)
I was having lunch a few years ago with the director of New York City’s welfare agency, a respected social-policy expert with a long career in government and the nonprofit sector. She had just spent a difficult morning observing the workings of New York’s Family Court, which had jurisdiction over cases involving child abuse, foster care and spousal support, among other matters that were routinely found in her own agency’s enormous caseload. “If only ministers in New York preached more about the virtues of matrimony,” she said, “my job would be much easier.”
Mr. Husock develops his argument through short sketches of several important, if now largely forgotten, figures in American social history. New York “child-saver” Charles Loring Brace and Chicago settlement-house pioneer Jane Addams sought to connect the mostly immigrant poor they served with middle-class Americans and their values. Mr. Husock movingly describes how this approach rescued his own father from a troubled childhood. Mary Richmond (who helped shape social work as a profession) and Grace Abbott (a key federal official in the 1920s) directed their efforts toward social and economic conditions and the role that government could play in improving them. Wilbur Cohen —a researcher with the commission that devised Social Security, and eventually a cabinet secretary—worked to build a system that combined income support with an array of therapeutically oriented services.
1b) Here's what President Trump had to say:
"IMMIGRANTS, NOT AMERICANS, MUST ADAPT... Take It Or Leave It. I am tired of
this nation worrying about whether we are offending some individual or their
culture. Since the terrorist attacks, we have experienced a surge in
patriotism by the majority of Americans.
"This culture has been developed over two centuries of struggles, trials and
victories, by millions of men and women who have sought freedom.
"We speak ENGLISH, not Spanish, Lebanese, Arabic, Chinese, Japanese,
Russian, or any other language. Therefore, if you wish to become part of our
society, learn the language!
"Most Americans believe in God. This is not some Christian, right wing,
political push, but a fact, because Christian men and women, on Christian
principles, founded this nation, and this is clearly documented. It is
certainly appropriate to display it on the walls of our schools.
"If God offends you, then I suggest you consider another part of the world
as your new home, because God is part of our culture.
We will accept your beliefs, and will not question why. All we ask is that
you accept ours, and live in harmony and peaceful enjoyment with us.
"This is OUR COUNTRY, OUR LAND, and OUR LIFESTYLE, and we will allow you
every opportunity to enjoy all this. But once you are done complaining,
whining, and griping about Our Flag, Our Pledge, Our Christian beliefs, or
Our Way of Life, I highly encourage you take advantage of one other great
AMERICAN freedom, 'THE RIGHT TO LEAVE'.
"If you aren't happy here; then LEAVE. We didn't force you to come here. You
asked to be here. So accept the country that accepted you."++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
2)
The decision to hold this election was disgraceful and should have been avoided. Indeed, one of the big questions that could be critical for the outcome are the voters who are fed up with our dysfunctional politics and will simply not bother casting their ballots.
1a)
‘Who Killed Civil Society?’ Review: The Goal Was Good Habits
People need what the government doesn’t provide: help in developing the personal traits that will reduce dependency and foster success.
By
I was having lunch a few years ago with the director of New York City’s welfare agency, a respected social-policy expert with a long career in government and the nonprofit sector. She had just spent a difficult morning observing the workings of New York’s Family Court, which had jurisdiction over cases involving child abuse, foster care and spousal support, among other matters that were routinely found in her own agency’s enormous caseload. “If only ministers in New York preached more about the virtues of matrimony,” she said, “my job would be much easier.”
Howard Husock, a vice president at the Manhattan Institute, might well agree. In “Who Killed Civil Society?,” he indicts government policies for eroding the values that enable people to succeed in life—such as thrift, industriousness and self-discipline—and for undermining traditional practices, like marriage, that cultivate success in all sorts of ways. “Despite the massive scale and blanket coverage of the modern social service state,” he writes, “it fails to provide something essential . . . : the modeling of habits and values that lay the foundation for upward social mobility and life as a contributor to one’s community.”
A few social scientists and cultural critics—including Charles Murray, Myron Magnet and Brad Wilcox —have made broadly similar arguments, but Mr. Husock focuses here more narrowly on civil society: the charities and voluntary associations—from Kiwanis clubs to Boy Scout troops, from community food banks to the PTA—that were once a distinctive feature of American life. Before the New Deal, he contends, such groups not only allowed Americans to join one another in a range of service activities but also taught them how to become good citizens and good people in the individualistic culture of the United States, where the older ties of religion, nationality and social class were less binding.
But a surge in government assistance disrupted the logic of voluntary enterprise. Social-welfare programs grew exponentially during Franklin Roosevelt ’s New Deal, and then again during Lyndon Johnson ’s Great Society, and continued to expand into the current century. The effect has been to diminish civil society’s role as well as to reduce its moral leverage: Many groups that were once privately supported have become heavily dependent on public funding, requiring them to abide by government rules that give them little room for espousing “bourgeois norms.”
Mr. Husock develops his argument through short sketches of several important, if now largely forgotten, figures in American social history. New York “child-saver” Charles Loring Brace and Chicago settlement-house pioneer Jane Addams sought to connect the mostly immigrant poor they served with middle-class Americans and their values. Mr. Husock movingly describes how this approach rescued his own father from a troubled childhood. Mary Richmond (who helped shape social work as a profession) and Grace Abbott (a key federal official in the 1920s) directed their efforts toward social and economic conditions and the role that government could play in improving them. Wilbur Cohen —a researcher with the commission that devised Social Security, and eventually a cabinet secretary—worked to build a system that combined income support with an array of therapeutically oriented services.
In the evolution of social policy, these figures certainly played an influential part and deserve the attention Mr. Husock gives them. He might have enriched his survey by including landmark events as well—for example, the publication of the 1965 federal report titled “The Negro Family,” written by Daniel Patrick Moynihan, which sought to direct attention to declining marriage rates among African-Americans but was instead vilified for supposedly “blaming the victim.” And he mentions only briefly the welfare-reform legislation of 1996, which required public-assistance recipients to work or lose their benefits, a clear instance of trying to align bourgeois norms and government practice.
So what is to be done? Many people require the kinds of assistance that government provides today, Mr. Husock notes, and would be hurt if it were withdrawn. But, he also notes, many people need what government does not provide and perhaps cannot: help in developing the kinds of personal traits likely to reduce dependence on such assistance. He describes a few examples of civil-society programs that he feels are offering that kind of help, such as Geoffrey Canada’s Harlem Children’s Zone, which combines high-expectations schooling with efforts to change youth culture. (Celebrity rappers may not visit.) Many more such examples from Mr. Husock would have been welcome. For nearly the past two decades, he has directed a Manhattan Institute program that gives awards to groups trying to foster middle-class values. (I have regularly served as a judge.) He doesn’t explain how those groups or others, such as the Nurse-Family Partnership, which sends nurses to visit low-income women expecting children, have managed to survive in the killing fields of government policy or what it might take to bring more of them into existence.
1b) Here's what President Trump had to say:
"IMMIGRANTS, NOT AMERICANS, MUST ADAPT... Take It Or Leave It. I am tired of
this nation worrying about whether we are offending some individual or their
culture. Since the terrorist attacks, we have experienced a surge in
patriotism by the majority of Americans.
"This culture has been developed over two centuries of struggles, trials and
victories, by millions of men and women who have sought freedom.
"We speak ENGLISH, not Spanish, Lebanese, Arabic, Chinese, Japanese,
Russian, or any other language. Therefore, if you wish to become part of our
society, learn the language!
"Most Americans believe in God. This is not some Christian, right wing,
political push, but a fact, because Christian men and women, on Christian
principles, founded this nation, and this is clearly documented. It is
certainly appropriate to display it on the walls of our schools.
"If God offends you, then I suggest you consider another part of the world
as your new home, because God is part of our culture.
We will accept your beliefs, and will not question why. All we ask is that
you accept ours, and live in harmony and peaceful enjoyment with us.
"This is OUR COUNTRY, OUR LAND, and OUR LIFESTYLE, and we will allow you
every opportunity to enjoy all this. But once you are done complaining,
whining, and griping about Our Flag, Our Pledge, Our Christian beliefs, or
Our Way of Life, I highly encourage you take advantage of one other great
AMERICAN freedom, 'THE RIGHT TO LEAVE'.
"If you aren't happy here; then LEAVE. We didn't force you to come here. You
asked to be here. So accept the country that accepted you."++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
2)
An election outcome reflecting the will of the people
By Isi Leibler |
Yet ironically, there is a possibility that the outcome could achieve stability and the new government to be formed may even reflect a national consensus.
Although recent opinion polls have proven to be utterly misleading, it would seem that Likud combined with the haredi and right-wing groups but without Yisrael Beytenu will again fail to win sufficient seats to obtain the majority required to form a right-wing government. As nothing Likud could offer would satisfy Avigdor Lieberman’s primary personal goal of politically destroying Benjamin Netanyahu, a repeated deadlock seems inevitable.
Yet, any suggestion of holding a third election is not an option. Besides, the fact is that, apart from supporters of the Joint Arab List and the haredim, most Israelis will vote holding their noses.
Likud supporters will be voting for a government that would include an eccentric like Moshe Feiglin and would support the legalization of marijuana.
Yamina, formerly the New Right, is headed by able and charismatic Ayelet Shaked but will have as one of its leading personalities the coarse, loud-mouthed Bezalel Smotrich, whose views radically contrast with those of religious Zionism’s founders, moderates like Haim-Moshe Shapira and Yosef Burg.
Those traditionally supporting Labor Zionist parties are forced to choose between Amir Peretz’s Labor-Gesher party and the Democratic Union, a merger of Meretz with failed former Prime Minister Ehud Barak’s Israel Democratic Party.
Blue and White supporters have two issues to contend with. Many shudder at the prospect of Yair Lapid of Yesh Atid – often referred to as “flapping gums” – becoming prime minister after a rotation of two years with Benny Gantz, unless, as is likely, the partnership is abruptly terminated after the elections.
The other concern is the lackluster pre-election performance of Gantz himself, who is devoid of charisma, contradicts himself, and seems to be a monotonously “nice guy” but hardly the leader Israel requires. This is highlighted with comparisons to Netanyahu who – despite a viciously hostile press, major diplomatic and military challenges, constant legal pressures, and an impending election – remains as cool as a cucumber.
Aside from the extent to which the powers of the Supreme Court to override government decisions are to be limited, there are no major political differences between Likud and Blue and White.
Setting aside the right and left extremes in both parties, there is a consensus that:
- Both major parties have identical security objectives.
- Both agree that an independent Palestinian state at this time would mean creating a terrorist state on our borders that Iran could employ as a launching pad to destroy us.
- There are various streams in both parties regarding applying Israeli law to settlements and, if the US does not resist, possibly annexing and applying sovereignty to Area C. This will come to a turning point after the elections when the Trump peace plan is finally revealed.
- Both parties oppose dividing Jerusalem or ceding further territories unless a final settlement is reached.
- Both agree that in the context of the status quo, all efforts should be made to improve the living conditions of Palestinians in the hope that they will ultimately have leaders willing to peacefully coexist.
In actuality, there are only two issues motivating voters.
The principal issue is “Bibi fatigue.” Those who have it argue that after 13 years, Netanyahu has outlived his political life and it is time for change so he should go. Ten years is usually regarded as the optimal political life of a democratic leader.
The secondary factor is the chance for a government in which the haredim are denied the opportunity to exert even more power and intensify their narrow interests with the Chief Rabbinate imposing even more stringent interpretations of Halachah. Lieberman’s anti-haredi incitement has successfully touched a responsive chord and led to an apparent substantial increase of voters to his party.
But what will happen after the elections when no juggling of political musical chairs with the smaller parties enables a government to be formed?
There is a possibility that, despite all the obstacles facing him, Netanyahu may still lead Likud to achieve a majority. Aside from last-minute electoral gimmicks, which Bibi has often successfully pulled off, many who despise him, when in the ballot box, may think twice before supporting an inarticulate novice to head their government in these troubled times. Even those who detest Netanyahu cannot deny that, whatever his personal weaknesses, he stands out today as a world-class leader enjoying excellent relations with US President Donald Trump, Russian President Vladimir Putin and other world leaders and now forging diplomatic channels with Arab former adversaries now inching closer to open relations with Israel.
In the context of what we face, it would surely be counterproductive to divest ourselves of him at this time when existential threats challenge us and agreements with the Americans and Russians could either have good or disastrous implications for us in the long term.
If Netanyahu is unable to form a right-wing government, he may make a generous offer to Gantz, possibly resulting in a split with Lapid, who would become leader of the opposition.
A national unity government would then be achieved, to the satisfaction of most Israelis. The haredim could remain within the government but they would no longer hold the balance of power and thus would not be in a position to veto government initiatives.
Even if politically victorious, Netanyahu will still face legal charges, but allowing for the presumption of innocence until proven guilty, which has not been the case with the scurrilous media campaign against him, the court may face a tough and lengthy battle to convict him.
In the alternative scenario should Likud not top the polls, there will be pressure from all sides, including his own party, for Netanyahu to step down and for a national unity government, with or without the haredim, to be formed, headed in rotation by Gantz and a new Likud leader.
Although this election is somewhat like a lottery, voters should try to set aside their personal feelings and, even if it means holding their noses, support the party whose leader they feel will be best equipped to head our nation over the crucial year facing us. Our choice could have existential repercussions on the nation.
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
3)
3)
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++The Darwin's are Out ...
Yes, it's that magical time of year again when the Darwin Awards for news stories are bestowed, honoring the least evolved among us.
Here is the glorious winner:
1. When his 38 calibre revolver failed to fire at his intended victim during a hold-up in Long Beach , California would-be robber James Elliot did something that can only inspire wonder. He peered down the barrel ??and tried the trigger again. This time it worked.
And now, the honorable mentions:
2. The chef at a hotel in Switzerland lost a finger in a meat cutting machine and after a little shopping around, submitted a claim to his insurance company. The company expecting negligence sent out one of its men to have a look for himself. He tried the machine and he also lost a finger... The chef's claim was approved.
3. A man who shoveled snow for an hour to clear a space for his car during a blizzard in Chicago returned with his vehicle to find a woman had taken the space. "Understandably", he shot her.
4. After stopping for drinks at an illegal bar, a Zimbabwean bus driver found that the 20 mental patients he was supposed to be transporting from Harare to Bulawayo had escaped. Not wanting to admit his incompetence, the driver went to a nearby bus stop and offered everyone waiting there a free ride. He then delivered the passengers to the mental hospital, telling the staff that the patients were very excitable and prone to bizarre fantasies... The deception wasn't discovered for 3 days.
5. An American teenager was in the hospital recovering from serious head wounds received from an oncoming train.. When asked how he received the injuries, the lad told police that he was simply trying to see how close he could get his head to a moving train before he was hit.
6. A man walked into a Louisiana Circle-K, put a $20 bill on the counter, and asked for change. When the clerk opened the cash drawer, the man pulled a gun and asked for all the cash in the register, which the clerk promptly provided. The man took the cash from the clerk and fled, leaving the $20 bill on the counter. The total amount of cash he got from the drawer... $15. [If someone points a gun at you and gives you money, is a crime committed?]
7. Seems an Arkansas guy wanted some beer pretty badly. He decided that he'd just throw a cinder block (?) through a liquor store window, grab some booze, and run. So he lifted the cinder block and heaved it over his head at the window. The cinder block bounced back and hit the would-be thief on the head, knocking him unconscious. The liquor store window was made of Plexiglas. The whole event was caught on videotape...
8. As a female shopper exited a New York convenience store, a man grabbed her purse and ran. The clerk called 911 immediately, and the woman was able to give them a detailed description of the snatcher. Within minutes, the police apprehended the snatcher. They put him in the car and drove back to the store. The thief was then taken out of the car and told to stand there for a positive ID. To which he replied, "Yes, officer, that's her. That's the lady I stole the purse from."
9. The Ann Arbor News crime column reported that a man walked into a Burger King in Ypsilanti, Michigan at 5 A.M., flashed a gun, and demanded cash. The clerk turned him down because he said he couldn't open the cash register without a food order. When the man ordered onion rings, the clerk said they weren't available for breakfast.... The man, frustrated, walked away. [*A 5-STAR STUPIDITY AWARD WINNER]
10. When a man attempted to siphon gasoline from a motor home parked on a Seattle street by sucking on a hose, he got much more than he bargained for... Police arrived at the scene to find a very sick man curled up next to a motor home near spilled sewage. A police spokesman said that the man admitted to trying to steal gasoline, but he plugged his siphon hose into the motor home's sewage tank by mistake. The owner of the vehicle declined to press charges saying that it was the best laugh he'd ever had. ??In the interest of bettering mankind, please share these with friends and family....unless of course one of these individuals by chance is a distant relative or long lost friend. In that case, be glad they are distant and hope they remain lost. ?
Remember.... They walk among us and vote.
4)
President Tigar Strikes Again
The problem with nationwide injunctions in judicial profile.
The Editorial Board
Judge Jon Tigar isn’t getting the message. For a second time the federal district judge who sits in Oakland, Calif., has blocked enforcement, from coast to coast, of the Trump Administration’s new asylum rules. Thus is government policy from Alaska to Florida overturned by one man in the Bay Area.
This isn’t how the judiciary is supposed to work. Judge Tigar’s first sweeping injunction, issued in July, was narrowed last month by the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals. A 2-1 majority said Judge Tigar had “failed to discuss whether a nationwide injunction is necessary to remedy Plaintiffs’ alleged harm.” The panel therefore constrained his order to the Ninth Circuit.
On Monday he reinstated the original scope, saying that only a nationwide injunction offers “complete relief.” One plaintiff, Innovation Law Lab, operates in several circuits. Bifurcated asylum rules would force it to “redesign its workshops and templates.” Another plaintiff, Al Otro Lado, aids asylum seekers from an office in Tijuana, Mexico. A split system would obligate it “to provide a much broader range of advice.”
Judge Tigar further cited “the need to maintain uniform immigration policy.” But the executive branch, which is responsible for that policy, has already moved to enforce its preferred approach outside the Ninth Circuit.
Nationwide injunctions are supposed to be an extraordinary remedy, not an automatic resort for plaintiffs who dislike a policy. The Supreme Court needs to step in and define the limits of this increasingly willful judicial intervention.
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
5)France Betrays US With
$15 Billion Iran
Bailout
France slapped the U.S. in the face with its $15 billion Iran bailout offer, which would serve to undo all the progress made by the sanctions imposed by the Trump administration on Iran. What should the consequences be?
Listen to Clarion’s National Security Analyst and Shillman Fellow Ryan Mauro discuss this on I24 News as well as the latest reports that Hezbollah has now moved its precision missiles intended for Israel into civilian areas.
Israel’s response to the Iranian and Hezbollah missile build up in Syria and Lebanon is now being publicly defended by Bahrain and the United Arab Emirates.
Amid the missile build ups by Iran and Hezbollah have come the disclosure by Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu that Iran performed experiments of nuclear weapons at a previously undisclosed site.
Watch here:
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
No comments:
Post a Comment